Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Here.

Commissioner Aliva? Commissioner Pham?

Here.

Commissioner Wu?

Present.

Vice Chair Benninger?

Present.

Chair Ramos? Chair, quorum has been reached at 05:33 p. M.

Thank you. Would you please have everyone stand for his pledge of allegiance? And, Commissioner Wu, would you please lead us? Thank you. Before we begin, I'd like to remind my fellow commissioners to turn off your mics or turn your mics on when you're speaking and off when you're not.

And when speaking, please, place the microphone about four inches from away from you. Thank you. Members of public community may attend the planning commission meeting either in person or or virtually via Zoom. I will now invite the Commission Secretary to describe how the public can access and participate in this meeting.

This meeting is being live streamed via our portal at www.santaanna.primegov.com/public/portal and on YouTube at www.youtube.comcityofsananavideos. If you would like to provide public comment, you may do so in the following ways. Join the meeting via Zoom, enter the meeting ID number 800000392251810. When the item you wish to comment on is being discussed, please select the hand icon to indicate that you would like to speak. Once called upon, remember to unmute yourself and state your name for the record.

You can also join the meeting by calling (669) 900-6833. Enter meeting ID number 800000392251810. When the item that you would like to comment on is being discussed, press 9 to let us know you would like to speak. You will be called upon by the last three digits of your phone number. After you are called upon, you may press 6 to unmute yourself. For those who are attending this meeting in person and would like to provide public comment, please fill out a request to speak form and turn it in into the recording secretary. All speakers will have three minutes to speak. I will alert you when your time is up.

Thank you. Moving on to public comments on non agenda or non public hearing issues. Secretary, does anyone wish to speak?

If you are attending this meeting in person and would like to comment on non agenda or non public hearing items, please fill out a request to speak form and turn it in into the secretary. If you are participating via Zoom and would like to comment on non agenda or non public hearing items, please select the hand icon to let us know you would like to comment. If you are calling in and would like to comment on non agenda or non public hearing items, please dial 9 and then 6 to unmute yourself. I will wait a few seconds. Chair, we did receive one public comment through email, which has been distributed to the commission and posted online for public record, but we do not have any public speakers in house or through Zoom.

Very good. I see our chair has shown up, so I'm going to turn this over to her.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Looks like we're on consent calendar items. So, moving on to the consent calendar, where will be one motion for all consent items, unless an item is pulled for separate discussion. Is there a motion to approve item a?

I move.

Thank you, Commissioner Whoopi.

Second. And we have a second from Vice Chair Benninger. Secretary, can you please call for a roll call vote?

Commissioners Camilla? Commissioner Leo? Aye. Commissioner Oliva? Aye. Commissioner Pham?

Aye.

Commissioner Wu?

Aye.

Vice Chair Benninger? Aye. Chair Ramos? Aye. Motion approved by majority vote with commissioner Escamilla and commissioner Leva absent.

That concludes the consent calendar items. Now we're moving on to the public hearing. I will now review the process for the public hearing so that everyone knows what to expect. SAP will provide a presentation and answer questions from the commission. The public hearing will be opened. The applicant will be given the opportunity to speak, limited to fifteen minutes. Members of the public will be given the opportunity to comment, limited to three minutes. The applicant will be given the opportunity to respond to comments made by the public, limited to five minutes. The public hearing will be closed. Discussion will return to the commission with formal action taken to approve, deny, or continue review of the application.

Please consider the following suggestions when organizing your comments. Please state your name and address, strictly voluntary. State whether you support, oppose, or are neutral of the proposal. Your statement should include all pertinent facts within your knowledge. Please note, decisions on these matters are final unless appealed within ten days by any interested individual or party.

Recommendations on these matters will be forwarded to the city council at a later date for final determination. I will now be taking item four, which is site plan review number 2026Dash01 and density bonus agreement number 2026Dash01 for the property located at 2101 East 4th Street located within the professional p zone and within and within the Metro East mixed use overlay zone out of order. The item is being recommended to be continued to a special meeting scheduled for 05/28/2026. Before we move to vote to continue the matter, procedurally, we need to open the public hearing to take public comment on the item. The public hearing is now open.

Recording secretary, have we received any written communication or is there a member of the public that would like to comment on this item?

Chair, we have received a total of two emails in the form of public comments for this item before the 03:30PM deadline, which has been distributed to the commission and posted online. If you are attending this meeting in person and would like to comment on this item, please fill out a request to speak form and turn it in into the secretary. If you are participating via Zoom and would like to comment on this item, please select the hand icon to indicate that you would like to speak. If you are calling in and would like to comment on this item, please dial 9 and then 6 to unmute yourself. I will wait a few seconds.

Chair, we do not have any speakers.

Thank you. The public hearing is now closed. Is there a motion to continue this matter to the special meeting scheduled on 05/28/2026 at 05:30 p. M. In this council chamber?

I I make that motion.

Thank you. We have a motion from Vice Chair Benninger. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you. We have a second from commissioner Leo.

Permit 2026Dash08.

Dash01, correct. We are continuing item number four. Secretary, can you please call for a roll call vote?

Commissioner Benninger?

Aye.

Commissioner Escamilla? Commissioner Leo? Aye. Commissioner Pham? Aye. Commissioner Wu?

Aye.

Commissioner Libba? Chair Ramos? Aye. Motion approved by majority vote with commissioners Camilla and commissioner Oliva absent.

Thank you. Now I will continue to go a bit out of order. We're gonna move on to item three. This is the time and place for conditional use permit number 2025Dash16 for the property located at 2000 East Sandpoint Avenue located within the specific development SD number 76 zoning district. Before we begin, do any commissioners have anything they wish to disclose with regard to this item?

I will disclose that I received a call from the Carpenter's Union, and I also received an email from the consultant for the applicant. The case planner, Nancy Tran, will provide a brief presentation.

I also received it, but I didn't from a consultant, but I don't answer.

Sorry. Just, for the record, it seems like Commissioner Wu also made a disclosure. Commissioner Wu, shared that he also received a contact by the consultant for the applicant. Do any other commissioners have any disclosures they would like to make?

Yes. The consultant did reach out to ask if, I wanted to meet.

Thank you. Commissioner Pham also received a contact from the consultant for the applicant, Vice Chair Benninger or Commissioner Elliott.

I received the same communication but didn't answer.

Agent like like me, I got no such calls.

Thank you.

The case planner, Nancy Tran, will provide a brief well, actually, it looks like Commissioner Escamilla is joining us at 05:43PM. Commissioner Escamilla, we are on item number three, the conditional use permit number 2025Dash16 for the property located at 2000 East Sandpoint Avenue. We just made our disclosures. Several commissioners were contacted by the consultant.

Yeah. Would like to disclose that I did meet with the project architect and consultant, last, Thursday or Friday, so I need an ex parte form.

Thank you. It looks like, several commissioners will may need an ex parte form. And with that, the case planner Nancy Tran will provide you a brief presentation.

Well, if you didn't contact them, you know, for clarity, you didn't talk to them. I mean, had I said get lost, you know, if you you can't get your act together, before the meeting and you can't make a presentation at the, publicly, then I would have responded. Right? But I didn't even answer.

Yeah. Thank you commissioner. The secretary and planning staff can follow-up with each of us individually to see whether or not we need to fill out an ex parte form. Our case planner, Nancy Tran, can now begin with her presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening commissioners. The item before you is an application for conditional use permit number 2020 for property located at 200 East Sandpoint Avenue located in

Ward 4.

The project seeks CUP approval to construct a mixed use development consisting of 400 units including 20 extremely low income affordable units equal to five percent and thirteen thousand eight hundred eighty seven square feet of ground floor commercial. The project qualifies as a housing development project subject to Senate Bill three thirty. Staff recommends that the commission adopt a resolution approving conditional use permit number 2025Dash16 for the construction of a mixed use residential and commercial development with ground floor commercial uses as conditioned. The subject property's general plan designation is District Center Medium Low DC 1.5. It's within the Hutton Center Mixed Use Specific Development District, also known as SD 76, and Sub Zone Zone 1.

Surrounding land uses include multifamily residential, office, and restaurant to the North, hotel and surface parking east, manufacturing, wholesale, warehouse, office, and parking garage south, and single family residential across Main Street to the West. The project site includes four parcels totaling 5.37 acres. To give a clearer picture of the context, here are photos of the property, one at the intersection of Sandpoint and Main along the western side of the development. Also, aerial view of the entire project site from the same intersection and at Sandpoint and Hunton Center along the Northeast corner. With respect to the site background, the four parcels were developed circa 1918 1981 as an eight story office building with surface parking.

The building has been continuously occupied by a range of professional office tenants including real estate, law, financial, administrative, and architectural firms. In July 2005, council adopted ordinance number n s two six nine zero, rezoning the subject property and others from general commercial c two zoning district to S D 76 with two distinct sub zones. Zone one, which allows for limited retail services, restaurants, and prohibits multifamily residential, and zone two, which allows multifamily residential and select commercial retail with the CUP. The subject project site land use designation is DC 1.5 district center medium low, allowing both residential and non residential development. However, the site zoning SD 76 Zone 1 where the project site is located does not include objective residential design standards and does not permit the proposed project.

As a result, the project was submitted under SB three thirty as a housing development project, permitting mixed use residential development consistent with the general plan without rezoning. For objective standards, the city looked to SD 76 Zone 2 as the nearest comparable multifamily district which allows residential and compatible commercial uses through a CUP and aligns with the DC 1.5 designation scale and intensity. This project qualifies as a housing development project under SB three thirty because it includes residential and mixed use components with at least two thirds of the floor area devoted to residential use. It's therefore covered by the Housing Crisis Act streamlined review and protection provisions. S b three thirty extended by s b eight in 2022 and made permanent by a b one thirty in 2025 restricts new non objective standards, limits discretionary hearings, and prohibits actions that reduce housing capacity.

The city deemed the project's s b three thirty preliminary application complete on 11/27/2024, which confirmed the project's eligibility and vested rights protections under s b three thirty. The applicant will separately seek city council approval of a density bonus agreement to formalize affordable housing commitments and applicable development standards. Does not request a numerical density bonus, incentive concession, 100

or waiver from development standards under state density bonus law. The project uses reduced parking ratios allowed under California government code section 65,015

p. However, this does not constitute a request for a concession, incentive, or waiver. Therefore, no planning commission action is required for the density bonus agreement. The project proposes 400 market rate rental residential units, 5% or 20 units affordable at extremely low income level, 13,887 square feet of Ground Floor commercial, and seven eighteen space garage along seven levels. The project proposed phase development.

For phase one, the office building will be retained while that adjacent surface lot is developed to construct two twenty four units, 5,818 square feet of commercial in the parking garage. In phase two, the office building will be demolished to construct the remaining 176 units and 8,069 square feet of commercial. Overall site improvements include 85,960 square feet of open space, a rooftop amenity deck which includes a pool, spa, club room, fitness, and outdoor seating, public plazas with outdoor seating, a business lounge, dogs, park, spa, game area, and dining areas, and four parallel parking spaces along Sandpoint Avenue. As mentioned in the previous slide, the applicant proposes a two phase mixed use development. This slide shows phase one located on the western portion of the site, which includes redevelopment of the surface parking lot with two twenty four apartment units, 5,818 square feet of ground Floor commercial space, and a structured parking facility while retaining the existing eight story office building.

This slide shows phase two located on the eastern portion of the site which includes demolition of the existing office building and construction of 176 apartment units and 8,069 square feet of commercial space. These are readings of the project. The top is at the Sandpoint And Main Street intersection, and the bottom is the Main Street elevation facing Northeast. These are additional renderings from Main Street. The top is entire west elevation in its entirety, and the bottom is at the south west corner viewing west and south elevations.

These are images along Sandpoint Avenue including a close-up of the Western Retail Plaza. The top two images are additional standpoint renderings as you approach Hutton Center Drive and the bottom is at the site's southeast corner at the loading and residential only vehicle access. This is the amenity deck at the Level 7 towards the interior of the property. In the bottom image is a transverse section of the various levels along the east facing west. Here's the conceptual landscape plan showing trees throughout the development.

The project replaces underutilized office and parking with housing and commercial spaces supporting nearby businesses. Its scale and massing are compatible with its surrounding neighborhood, providing a transition between adjacent residential, office, and industrial uses. Its seven level parking structure is set back more than 60 feet behind residential and commercial frontages to minimize its visual impact. The project's quality architecture, landscaping, and lighting will improve the public realm to create a vibrant streetscape, and conditions of approval will require a parking survey and parking management plan with measures such as permits, time limits, overflow access, and enforcement to proactively address any neighborhood parking impacts. Staff work with the applicant to ensure the project's design is context sensitive, compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and satisfies conditional use permit findings under SAMC Section 40 one-six 38.

The project conforms with the DC 1.5 scale and intensity and complies fully with the SD 76 Zone two objective standards. As an SB three thirty project, a project complying with objective general plan and zoning standards can only be denied if it poses a specific unmedical impact on public health or safety. The project meets the city's affordable housing ordinance by providing 20 on-site extremely low income units expanding access to affordable housing opportunities. The affordable units are dispersed throughout the development consisting of one studio, fourteen one bedrooms, and five two bedroom units ranging from five seventy six to eleven fifteen square feet. The developer's inclusionary housing plan has been reviewed and approved by the city's housing division confirming consistency with local affordability requirements.

With respect to the general plan, the project is consistent with the DC 1.5 designation transforming an underutilized site into a high quality mixed use development with housing, commercial space, and open space compatible with surrounding uses. It supports jobs, housing balance by introducing new residential units and ground floor commercial uses within a job rich area near existing employment centers. It promotes walkable pedestrian oriented development with active ground floor uses, landscape public spaces, and enhanced connections within the surrounding district. It incorporates context sensitive design, including articulated facades, appropriate building massing, screen parking, and generous landscaping to ensure compatibility with nearby development. It also advances general plan goals for urban reinvestment, housing diversity, and economic vitality by creating a vibrant mixed use urban node with public pauses in an active street frontage.

The project was subject to the city's sunshine ordinance requiring two community meetings to support early public participation. Across the meetings held, participants raised questions and concerns regarding parking potential spillover and management, traffic and circulation, affordability, construction impacts and phasing, project features, architectural design, retail, and the entitlement process. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA guidelines, the project is exempt from further review under section fifteen thousand one eighty three as it's consistent with the general plan where redevelopment impacts were adequately analyzed in the 2022 general plan EIR. The project is also exempt under section fifteen thousand one sixty two as it falls within the prior program's EIR scope with no substantial changes to the project, circumstances, or new information requiring subsequent or supplemental EIR. Based on this analysis, the notice of determination, environmental review number 2024Dash45 will be filed for this project.

There's no fiscal impact associated with this project. Staff recommends that the commission adopt a resolution approving conditional use permit number 2025Dash16 for the construction of a mixed use residential and commercial development with ground floor commercial uses as condition. This concludes my presentation, I'm available for questions.

Thank you for the presentation. Does the commission have any comments or questions for staff? Commissioner Wu.

The public, asked a question about entitlement. What is the entitlement concern there?

They were asking about the process.

The process?

The process.

Oh, okay. This is on existing property owned by someone. Right? Correct. And they're all all they're doing is modifying that to be They've been knocking on their own office building to provide affordable housing, right?

Partial affordable housing. 400 units Can that increase affordable

we go to Slide 32? That's not what I was looking at. I wanna look at Yeah, that picture. I'm having trouble picturing where the development is. So can you use your arrow to point out?

It's this entire area.

Okay. And is there any housing along the street on the other side?

Yes, there's housing right here.

Oh, that's gonna be knocked down?

No. This building will be knocked down.

Oh, that's knocked down. Most of the development there and then along the avenue, right?

Yes.

There'll be housing on both sides of the avenue.

Yes.

Okay. And you mitigated the ingress and egress along street there?

There will be access along Sandpoint and then Hutton Center Drive.

Okay. I wanna understand a little more about the relationship. The developer, I mean, the owner couldn't do this project until there were new legislation adopted at the state level, right?

That's correct.

Can we see that slide to kind of just go over it again for clarity? So the first thing So it has to qualify as a housing development project under the Senate Bill three thirty three zero, right?

Yes.

That you can include residential with mixed use. Yes. So now it is conforming with that. Okay. Although in the original general plan, that was not designated in that area, right?

No, the general plan does allow for residential and commercial.

Oh, okay. Now under the government code section 65,583 dash 5.5, due to the housing crisis act 2019, right, it allowed you to streamline the process. Correct. Okay. And then senate bill three three zero and extended by SBA in 2028 made permanent AB one thirty.

Yes.

And that means that it restricts new nonobjective standards, limit discretionary hearings, and prohibit actions that reduce housing capacity, which what I read that is meaning that subjective standards used by people in the community such as I don't like it or I don't like the color or there's just too much housing, too much traffic, too much noise and I'm concerned about this and that Does not matter, right?

That's correct.

Okay. That's not my opinion. I'm just looking at the law. Okay. The city being the SB three three preliminary application complete, which means staff did its job to check all the legal points and make sure the developer understand what they do and what else do for that. And so in term of what it looks like, I don't see a village there. I see some housing, but I don't see the public public square kinda concept. Is there a picture that will help me to understand that that is gonna be provided? You know, where you live and shop and move around.

So, all the commercial is along Sandpoint, and there will be public plazas here and here.

Okay. So, there is some, not a lot, but there is some there, right?

Yes.

Okay. The livability of that is that this developer had chosen to reduce office spaces and make them more residential. Is that reflective of the marketplace where office space now is not as desirable and not as marketable? And so owners are now switching over to housing?

That's correct.

Okay. So otherwise, if we can't do that, then they just sit there with a lot of empty offices. Okay. Thanks very much. Just just want some to clarify that. So I understand in my mind why the state law supersedes our local law, what we did to adjust for that. And this does not happen overnight. It's been going on for like at least two years. Right? Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Commissioner Wu. Do we have any other questions or comments for staff? Commissioner Pham, go ahead.

Just a few and then we can rotate. So I saw in the staff report that there is no objective, standard for the required open space. We typically see, multifamily developments try to meet a certain open space ratio. So if that's the case, is it just whatever the the developer is proposing as open space, and we're not comparing it to any existing standards?

That's correct. In SD 76 Zone two, they did not have any standards for open space.

So comparatively, if this was developed under our current development standards for projects similar to the scale and scope, Are they meeting the open space requirement, or are they over, under, objectively?

I don't have that information at the top of my head, but they are providing a lot more than the other projects that I've done.

Commissioner, as someone who's worked on my fair share of development projects of this scale, I can tell you, yes, it is comparable to the other projects that have come before this commission. The units have the balconies, there's the open space areas, and the staff reports that 37% of the site per area, when you do the math, is actually open space. So those numbers are largely consistent with other projects that have come before this body.

And then, you know, like commissioner Leo mentioned, there is a higher density project across the street, as well as we have the two residential apartment towers on the lower end of the of that general vicinity. Have we gotten any, kind of post occupancy, feedback from the existing single family on the other side of the lot or any complaints with the existing apartments that there's been parking issues?

Commissioner, so we do have staff from public works here this evening that can answer questions about like street parking issues. But what I can share is, back in October 2020 well, actually, was like August 2024 when the related Bristol project came before this commission, staff actually went and did parking surveys in the multifamily projects in the South End of town and the East End of town and found that, largely speaking, the parking ratios that were required by code, were exceeding what the actual parking demand was in those structures. So when staff went at all hours of the day during weekdays and weekends, either very early morning like 06:30, midday evening, and late at night on weekdays and weekends. What staff found was that typically the parking ratios, again, when one entered these parking structures, more or less about half to a quarter of the spaces were unoccupied, the parking spaces. So it reflected perhaps a better calibration between the bedroom counts and the unit mixes and the actual parking that was being built in the parking structures.

But if there is an inquiry about any parking impacts in like the Sandpoint neighborhood or neighborhoods across the street, I'm sure our colleagues from Public Works might have some preliminary data that they can share.

That's good. Just because it's similar, it looks similar in density, if there's no existing issue with parking, then we can assume there won't be any issue with the reduced parking ratio per state mandate. That's that's my point in asking. Other than that, one last comment. In terms of timing of the phasing, we saw that there's phase one, the parking lot that's serving the office building is being developed, and then phase two is the building itself being removed. So during phase one, would the office still be operational and in need of parking? How's that resolved?

Yes, it would still be operational. They do have agreements with the parking structure to the South and the parking structure to the North across Sandpoint for parking.

Okay, Perfect. That's it for me, chair.

Thank you, commissioner Pham. Vice Chair Benninger.

Yes. Kind of to help help you along, did have the opportunity to talk to the president of Sandpoint Neighborhood Association, also South Coast, And Amy Fry from Sandpoint did write a letter of support for this project. They feel very good about this project. One question I do have is they believe the parking will be three slots for each one of the apartments. I didn't see that in the presentation today or in in my paper things I read.

So is there a parking so many parking slots per unit that is being proposed for this project? If there isn't, there isn't. I was like, no, I didn't see it.

Vice chair, just a matter of clarification. Are you asking for the parking ratio that's proposed for the project?

Yes. Okay. While she's looking at that, I'm gonna ask another question. Just move this along. Are these units for sale or are they for for lease?

Thank you for that question, Vice Chair Benninger. As proposed, this project is a rental project.

Okay.

And then I can quickly interject on the parking question, perhaps this is helpful to staff, but I saw that the letter from the Neighborhood Association President mentioned the CBA and a parking pass program, which I don't know if that might be a part of the parking ratio answer.

I can take the question related to the parking ratio. So, for the number of units, it's a ratio of 1.5 spaces.

Okay. I'll talk back to Neighborhood just so that they understand that because they believe it's three. They believe it was moved from two to three.

And that ratio is consistent with what case planner Nancy Tran shared about the requirement per state law.

Okay, all right.

Vice chair, so there's gross parking per unit when you do the math, and then there's actually how a management company or allocates the slots per unit, right? Like a studio unit may often not have a parking space or may only have one parking space. Remember, if it's like 1.5, then you add up the point five, then it means there's extra spaces available for like the two bedroom units, let's say. So, when the public hearing opens and the developer comes up, you can ask that question about how will you allocate the parking by the units.

Okay. Well, I know the neighborhoods are happy with it, whatever the number is. I just want make sure that they have the right information on that. Also, staff has put in what I read is that there is some conditions for this approval. One of them, there will be a parking study done within it. Well, it doesn't say how long of time. I know what staff is thinking about how how long before you do a parking study after completion or what are your planning on that?

I could take that. So typically, we'd wait for any issues to arise, so if we notice that there is a parking shortage, we'd work with the applicant to address any of the parking issues. This is because there is a couple of different overlapping state laws that limit the city's ability to require more parking. So, one being what Nancy mentioned regarding the 1.5 spaces per unit. Second being this is also within an AB 2097 area that limits the city's ability to require parking. So if there is a noticeable impact related to parking, then we'd work at that point with the applicant to develop a plan to address any of the parking impacts.

Okay. So it depends. If you get no complaints, you don't do a study.

There's also a condition of approval number 14 that talks about within twelve months after final issuance of the occupancy permits or the finals for phase two, parking survey needs to be submitted to the city for review. And so at that point, it would be like a check-in twelve months post occupancy. We don't want to do these things too prematurely, because half the units may be vacant, but waiting twelve months post occupancy is usually a good timeline, both for us and the developer.

So, if the neighborhood suddenly has trouble with parking, do they contact planning or public works?

They would submit the study to the planning division, but because we work very well with our colleagues in public works, of course, we would review it with their assistance as well.

Very good. Very good. Now you mentioned one thing I also didn't read was all the conditions that the city is putting on this project, and you already mentioned number 14. What are the other 13?

The others include standard conditions for any changes to the project, any changes to the materials, standard condition for walls and fencing, mechanical equipment screening, and, yeah, those are all standard conditions.

All standard conditions. Okay. All standard. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go next. So, I have a few questions, for both planning staff and staff from the Community Development Agency. You all can share them however you'd like. So, my first question is on the EHOCO applicability. So, the EHOCO is our inclusionary housing policy. Can you please explain which of the ordinance requirements apply here?

Because it's a rental project, the and the amount of units they're providing, they could provide a minimum of 15% low, 10% very low, or 5% extremely low affordable units.

So, they're required to provide affordable housing then either on-site or paying a lieu fee of the other requirements, including the labor agreements, which of any of those apply here?

Defer that to housing.

Thank you, madam chair. Requirement in our inclusionary ordinance that applied was the 5% for extremely low income households for this project. The project, the developer decided to build the units on-site instead of the paying the in lieu fee option.

So, can you please explain in greater detail exactly what that means? So, because they've chosen to do 5% on extremely low, does that mean that they don't have to meet other requirements that they may have had to had they chosen a different AMI level or a different percentage?

So the two main options, right, for the that the developer initially selected was either to pay the in lieu fee or to build the units on-site. And so instead of deciding to pay the in lieu fee, which would have gone into our inclusionary housing fund to be used to develop and finance affordable housing, elsewhere, they decided to build the units on-site. And so, in terms of building the units on-site, they had the option to build 15% of the units for low income households, 10% for very extremely low income households or a combination thereof that's specifically in the ordinance. And in this case, the developer decided to build 5% of the units for extremely low income households out of the options available to them for building the units on-site.

Okay. And then, when, if at all, are the labor, the using union labor requirements triggered? And why weren't they triggered by this? Or are they triggered by this project?

If the developer had selected to, pay the in lieu fee instead of building the units on-site, then, the developer would have been required to use a certain percentage of union labor in compliance with the the ordinance. So the specific language is that effective 01/01/2026, union labor would have been, required had the developer, paid decided to pay the in lieu fee.

Okay. So because they're building on-site, they're not required to do the union labor for the building of their units?

That is correct, yes.

Okay, thank you. And then, a public comment mentioned a community benefits agreement that was agreed upon. Do you all have any more information on what that entails? I saw that the public comment, mentioned the parking pass program and a security package.

So some developers will negotiate these directly with the neighborhood associations. That happened for the legacy blue, legacy Sunflower project, which is now branded at Bloom at 651 West Sunflower, similar concept. So when the developer, comes for the public hearing, they can talk about the benefits that were negotiated as well as the background as to when in to when into those.

Okay, thank you. My next question is on the unit size and type of the units being built at this being provided at this project. So, I know there's 400 units, 20 of those would be affordable. I heard that the unit size for the affordable units was, I believe, one and two bedrooms. Are there any market rate units that are larger than two bedrooms?

And if there are, why aren't any of those larger units also being provided at an affordable level?

I can answer that question. There there are no, no units larger than two bedrooms in the in the project.

Okay. So, okay, thank you. So, the project as a whole only includes one and two bedroom units?

It also includes 29 studio units.

Okay. And then, the 20 affordable housing units are only one and two bedrooms, or are they also studios?

There is one studio that was calculated proportionally and equitably in regards to the proportional distribution of the 20 affordable housing units in the project.

Thank you. And then, I believe I heard this during the staff presentation, but these units are, scattered throughout the project. They're not all in one area of the project. Correct?

That is correct. Yes. They are, not only, distributed proportional to the unit size and, bedroom, bedroom count, but also they're, proportional to the phasing. So, there's 11 units, affordable units that would be built in phase one and nine units built in Phase two. And then those units are proportionally and equitably distributed throughout the project.

Thank you. And of the 20 units, will any of these be ADA compliant units?

I do not think so.

Of the 400 units, how many are ADA compliant units?

ADA gets kicked in as a requirement if a project is receiving city or public funding. If units are located on the upper floors, they're not often required to be ADA accessible, but nonetheless, if that is an interest of the Commission in guaranteeing a certain amount of accessible units, that's something that could be entertained as a condition of approval.

Okay, as of now, does staff know how many, if any, of the 400 units would be considered ADA compliant regardless of whether it has been triggered or not?

I don't have that information.

Thank you, I will ask the applicant as well. Those are all my questions, I also just wanted to share that I did see a public comment express concern that this development would include units for people with extremely low incomes, and they mentioned that this was a concern because of a nearby, houses population. So, I just wanted to share that we should be more concerned when we don't have extremely low income units, that's when we should have concern. These units will help prevent, homelessness and houselessness, and will also give people an opportunity to get off the street, so just wanna share that we should not be concerned that people with extremely low incomes may be our neighbors. Thank you.

And I'll go over to Commissioner Liu.

So I had I've had this concern that's been coming, and I think I'm gonna have to talk it out here. My concern is that it's too many rental units. We're not building community here. We're building renters. And if you go to the Northeast Corner, there's condominiums.

We have no entry level housing for young professionals in the city. Was ownership contemplated by the by the developer? And if so, why aren't why didn't they proceed with ownership? I mean, because, really, rentals get you basically a transient population. Nobody stays really, really long. Maybe the affordable units people will stay longer because it's hard to find affordable units, but ownership in general. And I I don't know if we talked to the developer about ownership, especially entry level ownership condominiums, is basically all we got because every other home in Santa Ana is 700,000 plus.

If I may

Yeah.

I just do wanna remind the commission that this is the time to ask questions of staff or to clarify things from the presentation, You'll have an opportunity to hear from the public as to their comment and as to the applicant to ask some questions, and then you'll excuse me. Then you'll have the opportunity to discuss the item.

Okay. So why don't I do this? I'll ask staff. Do we have incentives in the code that incentivize developers to build ownership units instead of rentals?

Thank you, Commissioner Leo. So currently, no. The code does not. Staff is, as part of the comprehensive zoning code update, looking at building in incentives into the zoning code and affected codes like our subdivision ordinance that would actually help incentivize applicants in submitting subdivision applications as part of multifamily or single family housing applications, or almost always of ownership based, but multifamily is often rental. For this project, the applicant and the city had discussed an ownership, path that would have entailed a condition of approval, which is actually resolution as condition number 15, that would require them to come back to the Commission at a future date with a subdivision map application.

That was the initial path forward. Following a recalibration of the project by applicant to introduce on-site affordable units, the ones described by the case planner, the applicant shared new information with staff that they can also present during the public hearing that shed light on why doing an affordable ownership community would be difficult for them, given the nature of how their business structure is set up, the financing, the lending, and all that. So I would encourage that question to also be posed of the developer, but I will say that for this project initially, yes, staff and the applicant were moving in that direction, at least in conversation, but following the recalibration to introduce the on-site units, new information was presented that made that a little bit more complicated. Again, the public hearing is a great opportunity to discuss that.

Have one other question for staff. Utilities along Main Street, are they being they're undergrounded, or are they already undergrounded on Main Street in that section there of that property? Do you know? If not, I'll ask the applicant.

So any new development requires undergrounding.

Okay. Thank you. Those are my only questions. Sure.

Thank you, Commissioner Leo. Commissioner Escamilla.

Alright. Let's see. I guess a few things just kinda bundled together. So we had the one slide that kinda showed the fence, and I I know that, for a lot of our projects, the fences are almost kind of an afterthought. So this is probably not going to be applicable here because it's already at this phase.

But I'm wondering if we're looking at any kind of additional fence requirements and standards, again, at least a little bit ornamentation just because what people are mostly going to be seeing along Main Street, it's going be a combination of landscape and what I imagine is going be fairly standard, like two inch wide, like wrought iron fencing over there. So if there's any way we can look at more decorative elements, especially once we start hitting kind of that 200 foot mark that we're seeing, it's just like this long wall, I think it's a nice opportunity to increase some variability and additional detailing on the fence side of things. So that's just the one observation. Again right now I think it's just brought iron all the way down Main Street. Would that be correct?

There's fencing along Main Street. Only at the southern property line.

Oh, it's

a southern property line. Okay. As long as it's out the right of way. I must have missed read that visual cue then. Wondering if and this might be more of a public works question. So what I'm seeing is that there's not really gonna be that much on street parking here, and the roadways are relatively wide. I think we're getting about average of, 26. Let's see. The road widths are about 26 going in either direction. Some of these individual lane widths are about 16 feet wide. I'm wondering why we didn't do any sort of on street parking. So, yeah, I think it's a public works question on this one.

Good evening, plan and commissioners. Alright. So, there is some on street parking, you can see on the south side over there, of Sandpoint approaching Hunt And Center Drive.

Right. We got like four on the parallel parking side. Yeah. And then that's already because it's pre it's a pre existing cut out to the existing roadway as is. What I'm saying is the both on the Main Street side, we do have that right hand turn I know that that's probably for the traffic, but if we're trying to create less of a gap between the neighborhood and it's got a little bit more residential, it seems like a natural place to add in a layer of parking, not have too much of an impact on the traffic patterns heading north, and still maybe having that right hand turn lane. But it seems like it was a missed opportunity for on street parking there, along with other portions of Sandpoint Avenue.

Yeah, I did notice how long that right turn pocket is. It is very long northbound on Main Street approaching Sandpoint. But traffic the traffic team did not actually comment on that. So I you know, we can take another look at that in terms of Public Works

And this is actually maybe part of a larger vision for the general area, is it seems like this is also a location where there's wide enough intersections that I'm afraid with all the uncontrolled kind of turning in directions, what we're now doing is the standard practice seems to be installing roundabouts in kind of higher traffic areas. And we do need a method to pay for the roundabouts. Even if we do on street paid parking for this district, it allows additional flexibility. The funding can go back into the improvements, and it just creates a more walkable, urban, and kind of safe environment where we're gonna have less traffic issues, and we can do the roundabouts now prior to everybody kind of moving in. So again, just a bigger thought and vision, but this is a big project, and one of the big missing components to this particular new neighborhood, I guess, yeah.

Right, and definitely valid points, and I think because of the affordable housing and the need for, you know, the state's support for housing kind of regardless to a degree of some of the normal things we might ask for in a development project, I think that, you know, it's it's a little tighter what we can actually ask for.

Okay. Yeah. Even if that's maybe just something in the future as a city project adjacent to this, It does seem, again, a very significant opportunity for parking meters to add parking to then allow for additional circulation, because it seems it's gonna be a very, as far as density and intensity of uses and variety of uses, it's probably the best thing we have to another downtown in the city at this point.

With short term versus longer term parking, that kind of thing.

Right, exactly. That balance. I think that was the only parking question. Yep. Okay. You're good.

Okay.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Okay. So there was that one. Street parking. And I guess just to alleviate some fears from the residents, yeah, a 30% AMI is for a family of four making $50,000 a year. So, we all know families that make $50,000 a year that can't afford to live here, so that's I think the target audience for this family. There's no permanent supportive housing here, so that's probably more of the area or higher need population even more so, but this is, again, 30% EMI, so family 50,000 would be kind of that target audience for those 20 units.

I'm sorry. What was your question?

Oh, sorry. Just the 30% AMI currently is for Orange County family of four would be $50,000 a year so then we'd basically be looking for families that make upwards to $50,000 is kind of the cap.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Oh, my gosh. This actually I'm not sure if it is in the conditions currently. So during that second phase when the building gets demolished, will there be any sort of mandated HABs recording of the buildings or just kind of documentation prior to demolition? I know it's not a historic building, but as a standard practice.

Thank you for the question, Commissioner. One of the conditions of approval is that the project be consistent with the mitigation included in the general plan. And in the general plan, one of the items is that if the building is older than 45 years old, which I believe this one is, we would go through that exercise.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you. And there was one condition I think that was reasonable that came in from ALUC regarding tenant notification on noise, which I think is something that is included already, but just wanted to make sure we flag that. Seems like a decent recommendation from ELOC. And, I think that's what I have for now. Thank

you, Commissioner Escamilla. I'm gonna go ahead and open the public hearing with the commission being able ask additional questions of staff afterwards. Would the applicant like to speak on the matter? And the public hearing is now open.

Good evening, chair Ramos and commissioners. Thank you for the chance to, be here tonight. I am Johnny Schneider. I represent the applicant and the owner for the property. We're a committed developer in Santa Ana. This is not our first project here, and we're excited to be back. A big thank you to staff getting us to this point, and we look forward to your questions. The design team is here and can respond if you have questions for us and we urge your approval. Thank you.

Thank you. Does the Commission have any questions or comments for the applicant Or anybody on the applicant's team? Go ahead, Commissioner Leo.

I wanted to ask you when the penciling of the project and you couldn't do you couldn't do ownership, and you went you went the affordable route. What I I'm I'm trying to understand

Sure.

What what triggered it because at times, we wanna try to create permanent areas, communities. So I'll ask you what happened.

No. Nothing changed in that respect. We are a market rate apartment developer. We're a long term hold. We have a number of properties like this. We like to build community. There isn't a misunderstanding about that. I appreciated your question about the ways in which, Codin sensed that. At our I I had a very not unique, but notable interaction with a tenant at our property at the Park on 1st next to the zoo. Mhmm.

The the tenant there used to live North Victorville, I believe. He's retired Navy veteran, and his wife, they relocated to Santa Ana for more than a short term so that she could receive medical care. So we very much believe in the product that we're developing, which market rate for those that wish it and there to serve as a stepping stone. I lived in an apartment before I bought my first house. My roommate from college, he lived in an apartment before he bought his first house. So I I am proud of the of the community that we're enabling and and the product that we're providing.

Think it

serves an important

So did the so when when when you went down this road and staff asked about ownership, and you basically said, well, once we add the affordable component, it can't be ownership? Or was there a trigger somewhere? Because when you think about the number of units we've approved, being the leader in the county right now, we're gonna have to contemplate how we get these young folks who young professionals into an ownership product of some kind. Sure. And what's happened is the high rises down across from Sandpoint were originally approved as condominiums. They're now apartments. So what I'm trying to figure out is what what what what what was the trigger that said, can't do ownership. I have to do rental.

I have to do apartments.

I'm not familiar with the adjacent property and the conversion from one to the other. Mhmm. That that's new. I will say that we always planned this project as a market rate rental

Okay.

Apartment project. I've talked candidly with staff about the future potential for other things, but this was always intended to be

Okay.

A market rate in apartment.

Alright. Thank you.

Yep. Thank you. Commissioner Leo.

Oh, and I will add we have, architect, traffic, other members of our team here if there are other questions that I can't answer, so

you. And we'll have you stay here as there will likely be several questions from the commission, and then you can call any members of your team up as needed. Do we have any other questions for the applicant? Go ahead, Commissioner Pham.

I know that you're offering a studio, one bedrooms and two bedrooms. In the two bedrooms, there an occupancy limit that's operational for your property, meaning is it available for a family of four, or is it available for a family of six, or is it just two people?

We don't have a policy separate from building code.

Because my my my conflict here is that you're offering extremely low income units. Right? And the MI is based on a family of four. But if the if it's in practice, you're only gonna be renting out to an applicant that can only occupy two person per apartment, and it kinda defeats the purpose. That's where my conflict is.

And maybe it's a question I can also ask, housing development, but that's that's where I'm trying to tease out is is there a a policy? Because, like you said, you manage other properties. You know, do you allow for more than two occupants in a two bedroom apartment typically?

I would have to check and get back to you about the specifics, looking at our other operation, but, I I recognize the tension you're referring to. So I will double check and find that out, but I don't know the answer to that question.

Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner Pham. Go ahead, commissioner Wu.

Let's talk about business. Okay? Of all the choices that you can make for the property, this is what you chose, consulting your architect and all that. Right? You didn't wanna do townhomes. You don't wanna be do single family homes. Right? No. We all have different opinions about what the market is. Right?

But there's a marketplace for those people who are not ready to marry, not ready to settle down in a home that they have to pay a mortgage on. So they look for a place that they could stay. Then you have workers that earn a living but not enough to live in a home that that studio might just fit them at at the same time. So you're a developer who look at that market and

rental because you're gonna own that for a

long time, and you're gonna receive an income from that. Right? And and and that's different from if you were to buy a house and sell it off. Right? You get the capital gain right away.

Sure.

Okay. Can you explain I don't know I don't know if you need to explain, but I just wanna contrast the difference between how how a developer does, you know, apartment houses versus a homeowner and that do single family home. And in single family home, you need more land, don't you, and space because you have yard to consider or something. Right? And the market for that, for affordability with the interest rate today is kinda high. Right? I'm I'm just asking us so that we could clarify that for people who are thinking that we should be building single family home on this property. It just didn't fit a viable mark a model. Is that right?

I I wouldn't know the, how different the amount of space is for the neighborhood across the street for the site that we're on. Currently, the site that we are planning to develop is a large open asphalt parking lot. It's not a large enough space to put a large number of single family homes.

And your your decision to put very low income there was not gratuitous. Right? Because you weren't asking for increased density and, you know, more units being built on an increased destiny.

Right.

You said you wanted to have low income people live in the house, very low income, right, in the unit. So and that's the difference between, being intuitive in order to achieve something, you know, in term of your building. Am I right about that?

We are not pursuing a a higher density as a result of that agreement. Maybe I should be.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Wu, vice chair Benninger.

Thank you. First of wanna thank you and your team for agreeing with the neighborhood associations. As I talked to both presidents, they all had very positive comments about how the interaction went. I guess one confusion that I have is, Sandpoint believes you're parking three units per per, apartments, and yet the city's telling me it's one and a half. Can you explain the difference?

Sure. I I I can't speak for the comment that was made to you, but my understanding is the Sandpoint HOA is expecting us to provide two to one. Not three to one, but two to one was my understanding of their understanding. So I I I can't speak to your comment, but I will say that we have asserted to them a two to one ratio. Our I have this the more specifics in the back, and and I'll I'll defer to the architect on the on the precise, but I will not take all of the thunder by saying we do, as Nancy mentioned, have an easement agreement with the parking structure to the south.

They provide a certain amount of parking spaces to our site, and then we also have the parking structure across the Street 203 and a large number there. So with all of those being provided, we do provide a ratio close to two to one, if not over two to one with, the parking that we have available.

Okay. Because, yeah, they felt that they had moved from two to three. I'll I'll talk back to Tammy and and let her

Two to one would be, I think.

2 number. Okay. Very good. Just more for general knowledge and what sort of commercial buildings are commercial are you looking to come in? Grocery store? What what are you looking for?

We would love to provide a grocery store. I'm not sure if a grocery tenant would be there. We will provide a a large number of customers to the potential tenants that that come there. I can't say who that will be. I don't know. We don't have commitments from a grocery store. Sure would like one if you know somebody. But the we would hope that the retail there would be a good match for the apartment and the surrounding neighborhoods. And I think that, hopefully, that will be the case. There should be demand from those customers for that type of retail.

Okay. That is one point that Sam pointed brought up to me was that they will love to see a grocery store over there.

Yes. Yes. They would.

Thank you, Amistad.

Thank you. I have a few questions. My first one is, are you planning to use any union labor for this project?

We have, no firm plans one way or the other at this point. We have, a year still to design the construction drawings. We have no objection to, but we have no agreement in place at this point. No.

Okay. And is that something that you're open to considering?

Not at not tonight. No.

That's just a question. I'm not looking to make it a condition.

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Are you all exploring using union labor to build this development?

We have no objection to, we're not exploring it at this time. We're waiting for our entitlement approval so that we can begin construction drawings.

Thank you. My next question is how many of your 400 units are ADA compliant or will be ADA compliant?

Again, not to take the, they are all adaptable ADA, which is to say they can all be ADA. At this point, we would follow building code, but they would all be adaptable ADA at this time.

Okay. Including the 20 affordable housing units?

Yes.

Okay. What is the community benefit agreement that you, have negotiated with the Neighborhood Association entail?

I don't have a copy of it, I don't have it here. This would be with

So, per public comment and, staff comment, it seems that you, as the applicant or your team, has entered a community benefit agreement with the nearby neighborhood association. Staff isn't aware of those details because you all have negotiated it, so I'm asking for details.

Their concerns were mainly focused on security and on parking. We've made them assurances that they will not have parking issues as a result of our project, and we've also, reassured them that we will not be providing them any security, risks as a result of our project.

So what do those assurances include? I, saw in the written public comment a mention of a parking pass program. What does that mean?

We've offered, different ways to mitigate any unknown or future parking concerns, including, a parking plan.

So what would that look like?

In other cases, we don't have a specific plan in place for this project. This would be triggered by a unforeseen future issue. We anticipate providing, more than enough parking so that we don't provide them any issues in the unlikely event that they have issues as a result of our project, which we are assured that they won't. In that unlikely event, we would take steps to monitor our tenants parking such that if there was an issue in their neighborhood caused by our tenants, we could take action.

So do you have any information on what that action would look like? Does that mean off-site parking? I'm just trying to understand the community benefit that this development would provide.

We have assured the adjacent neighborhood that they will not have any parking issue. Should they have a parking issue, we will engage with a parking plan.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Pamela DiCepetto. I think I can clarify that because I worked very closely with the Sandpoint HOA on the agreement with them. I think you will find in your staff report the conditions that deal with parking pass program, part of the parking management plan that are listed in your conditions of approval are are the same as what we are doing with the Sandpoint Homeowners Association. That is a private agreement with them. It's not a public agreement, but we we have indeed, talked about the park managing the parking with through parking pass programs, assisting them in, security if there are any security issues that they, find, or they are encountering, that we, are going to be, very similar doing things very similar as what we did with the Bloom because I also worked on that project as well with the Sandpoint Homeowners Association.

We are, establishing a parking pass program where the residents that live there will have, stickers or decals so that the, they can be recognized if they are parking in the community. We are also did commit to two to one parking. When you add the, I think there's a bit of confusion over the amount of parking that's here, and I'll let the, I'll let our other consultant talk to you about what that actual ratio is. But when you add the 69 spaces and when you add the parking at that's at Hutton Place. And when you add the parking that is at 203, we actually are providing more than two per unit, which is what we committed in our agreement with the Homeowners Association.

Thank you. Thank you for providing a more thorough, response. Can you share a bit more about that security package and exactly what the applicant is willing to provide to

Sure. So we discussed with them the notion of whether they would like to have cameras in their community. They have not decided that they really wanna do that, but we have we have agreed to commit, to contribute financially as an amount of money to them to to to buy three or four cameras if that's what they wanna do. So that is what we're talking about in terms of security. I know that the Bloom project also, did not did not offer that. They offered just, their security personnel driving around the neighborhood, but that's that is not part of this project.

Thank you. And then my next question is on the affordable housing that will be provided. How did the applicant decide to provide 20 units at extremely low income? How did you all come to that decision?

We came to that decision because we felt that that was meeting the greatest need and that that would be providing the the well, again, the great providing the and meeting the greatest need in the community for that amount, and so that's why we chose that.

Thank you. Thank you for choosing to build extremely low income. We don't see it that often, and and I greatly appreciate it. I've been a big advocate for that for a long time. And did you all consider building more than 5% of the units as affordable housing?

We considered the different options in terms of affordability, which would have included more units, but decided instead to use the 5% extremely low.

Thank you. And has the would it be feasible or would you all consider building additional units, additional affordable housing units?

No, that is pencils to the bottom line, and that was the most they could do.

Thank you. And then, I'll re ask the question I asked earlier, just to see if you have a different or more thorough answer, or is the applicant, exploring using union labor at this time?

The applicant did enter into negotiations, but at this point, nothing we haven't finished that. So they really need to get to the construction drawing detail level, find out what the cost is. But, again, as Johnny said, they're not opposed at all to using union labor through an open bid process.

Thank you. So it sounds like you are exploring it. Yes. Thank you. And then, just one more question I also asked earlier. I asked how many of the 400 units are ADA compliant. Heard that they would be ADA adaptable. If we make having a certain number or percentage of units ADA compliant a condition, is that something the applicant is amicable to? That I don't know. Whoever would be the best person

to answer.

So, think that, I'm gonna introduce Paul Anderson, who is with TCA. He's the architect and can address that.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. So typically, there is a there is a difference between adaptable and accessible. So, accessible has a lot more requirements. It's usually you see accessible units come into play when it's government funded housing. So when you do, you know, affordable housing that is that is subsidized by the government, then we would go to those extreme conditions to deal with accessibility, whether it's, you know, for wheelchairs, whether it's for sight, whether it's for sound.

In in this case, that's not something that we're pursuing. The affordable units that are being provided are being paid for by the applicant. They'll actually be at the same level as the market rate units. So there won't be, you know, finished changes or anything along those lines. And so then every unit will be handicap accessible, meaning that it will meet, you know, certain threshold sizes, certain door sizes, strike site clearances. So if you are in a wheelchair, you're able to maneuver through your apartment. That goes for bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchen spaces. All of that will comply with accessibility requirements from chapter 11 a of the building code.

Thank you. So would the applicant be amicable to committing to a specific number of units that are considered accessible?

Not really at this time. There is a large financial obligation to take units that are accessible and make them I'm sorry, adaptable and make them accessible. We believe that the accessible units work for the majority of of people with with special needs. And because we're not receiving government funding, there's no additional funding mechanism to allow us to do fully adaptable units.

Sorry. Do you mean, no additional mechanism to do fully accessible, but you're adaptable?

Fully accessible units.

Thank you. So, if a person, was interested in renting and they required an accessible unit, would the applicant then create one of the adaptable units and make, or adapt it to be more accessible?

So, what an adaptable unit would mean is that if there's a person with special needs, let's say a person that's in a wheelchair that wishes to rent the unit, the applicant will then install certain items within that unit to make it comparable, if you will, to an accessible unit. So, I'll give you an example. So, in in bathrooms, there'll be backing in the walls to accommodate grab bars. But grab bars won't be provided in the standard unit. But someone who is in a wheelchair who rents the unit then would require the applicant to install grab bars within that bathroom area.

Other other items are already built in place. So workspace within a kitchen. There are areas that are lower within the kitchen that allow for someone in a wheelchair to be able to utilize that workspace for prepping food, versus having the higher countertop. Those were already built into place. So there are certain things that we would do, or the applicant rather would do to accommodate those needs.

Great. Thank you for that clarification. Those are all the questions I have at this time. I'm gonna go this way, Commissioner Wu, and then we'll come back around. Commissioner Leo, do you have any questions for the Thank you. Commissioner Escamilla?

Sorry. I'm wondering if you can speak to This particular project doesn't unbundle parking, but you have kind of the situation where you have a lot of various kind of options for parking in the immediate vicinity. Can you talk to me a little bit about your experience since you have a larger rental portfolio of what unbundling does as far as the impacts to parking management on a site this large? If there is anything that you can speak to on that. If not, that that's okay. But, it it just seems to be one of the issues that if parking's coming up, that might be one potential solution to try to figure out how to better manage the parking on-site.

Based on I'll I'll answer in brief. We like we sorry. There we go. We we we like to typically be at a 1.8 at our properties. We find that that works very well.

This and sometimes those projects with a 1.8 will have two and three bedrooms in some cases. In this project, with the unbundled parking, we're at a two to one ratio. We would like this project to be at a 1.8 if we were designing it based on historical data, not, exactly building code or zoning code. So I don't know if that answers your question, but we feel very confident with the parking. And then we've worked with staff to make sure that there is signage in the future directing tenants or guests parking on-site to available nearby parking.

And I guess just for this particular project, how is that agreement gonna work out? I guess with the Griffin structures that's maybe not on the project site, but then individuals that are renting here will have, I guess, priority access or kind of a set aside or, again, not quite sure how that agreement's gonna be working there?

At our other project in Santa Ana, we use assigned parking. In the Griffin example, we have a number of spaces that are easement to to the property, and so a simple assignment would solve for that. That's a couple of years away from now, and maybe we tweak that plan, but that would be one way of addressing it.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner Scamilla. We're gonna go back to commissioner Wu now.

May the lady please come back up? For the interest, in term of public disclosure, your private agreement with the homeowner association, did anyone setting up here participate in that negotiation? No. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner Wu. Do we have any additional questions for the applicant at this time? Great. I see none for now. Thank you.

Recording Secretary, have you received any written communication or is there a member of the public that would like to comment on this item?

Chair, we have received a total of six emails in the form of public comments for this item before the 03:30PM deadline, which has been distributed to the commission and posted online. If you are attending this meeting in person and would like to comment on this item, please fill out a request to speak form and turn it in into the secretary. If you are participating via Zoom and would like to comment on this item, please select the hand icon to indicate that you would like to speak. If you are calling in and would like to comment on this item, please dial 9 and then 6 to unmute yourself. I will wait a few seconds.

Chair, we have two speakers in house and one speaker in Zoom.

Thank you. I'm gonna first call up Brian, Farkas. I apologize if I mispronounced your last name.

No, you got it right. Thank you. Good evening, Planning Commission. My name is Brian Farkas. I represent the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters.

I'm here this evening regarding the Sandpoint LLC mixed use project before you tonight consisting of four hundred four hundred residential units and ground floor commercial space. Our our organization represents thousands of skilled construction workers across Southern California, including roughly 1,200 active members who live right here in the city of Santa Ana and are ready to help build this project projects like this one. I wanna briefly address the work port workforce provisions of the city's housing opportunity ordinance that became effective 01/01/2026. As reflected in tonight's agenda item, the density bonus agreement related to this project's affordable housing obligations will be considered separately by the city council under the city's housing opportunity ordinance, projects proposing 20 or more units that utilize the in lieu fee compliance option are required to provide enforceable commitments for the use of skilled and trained workforce in compliance with the city's local hiring policies. Those provisions were adopted by the city council to ensure that when large residential projects move forward, the surrounding community shares the benefits through quality local jobs and properly trained workforce.

Given the size of this project and the value it stands to generate, we hope the applicant embraces those standards rather than attempts to avoid or narrow their act applicability. We respectfully encourage the commission and city staff to ensure the city's adopted workforce policy are fully applied and implemented as intended. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Up next, we have Tissy Smith. I also apologize if I have mispronounced your name.

Sorry. My name's Tissy Smith. I live in Sandpoint. I've lived there for thirty years. I am a single family home.

My concern is according to these people, they're going to have 29 studios with zero parking for those people. Everybody knows in California, you have at least one car. These people in two zero one across the street, when they're trying to do the construction and all of that, they don't allow for their people, their workers to any place to park. So they come and they park in our neighborhood, and they, you know, eat their lunch, or they sleep, or whatever they're doing for their lunch hours. Also, in the thirty years I have lived there, we had three parks.

We public parks. We have never had another public park since. But these apartments, they get a a parking or a park kind of area for their own people. But then they use our parks because our parks have, areas for their children. Also, these 20 extremely low income affordable units, who selects these people that get to come into those units?

Do they do background checks to make sure that we're not getting I go to the city council meetings, and I hear all the time about the people that move into these low income places, and then they start doing drugs, and they can't get them out, and it's it's a total nightmare. They don't live by me. I mean, last week, we did have someone sleeping in the parkway. We called the police, and they came and shooed the person away. I don't know where.

But I just want you to be really aware, when they say 400 units with 718 parking spaces, but they have four people in each unit, It doesn't work out. So those are my opinions. Oh, and also on when they're talking about rental versus ownership, I asked at 201 Sandpoint why they were doing that, and they said, it's because ownership doesn't give us any money. We get these long term rentals that turn over. So why would we want to provide something that's a one off for us?

That's it.

Thank you. And then I believe we have a speaker on Zoom.

Michael Hansen. You have to

be muted. Michael Hansen. Just a couple of points in regards to things I've heard in this meeting. I've heard reference to the Sandpoint Home Motors Association. There is no legal entity that represents homeowners in the Sandpoint name.

It's a group that represents but without legal authority. So what they're making CVAs, they're not representing every person in the neighborhood as there is no association. We've also had promises of parking issues with the mark, the towers, so that they would not park in our neighborhood. Well, if you drive in our neighborhood in the morning, you will see people walking across the street from the mark coming to get their cars in the neighborhood. You will see people if you take a walk at 06:00, 09:00 at night in the neighborhood, you see plenty of people driving up, hopping out of their car, and somebody else picks them up and drives off to the apartments.

These are all issues that their 1.5 parking spaces per unit is laughable. We were made promises with previous building construction jobs that parking would not be an issue. We already have an issue with houses with multiple cars for people that just live with

their family. And then we have to

fight with people who are coming in from the apartments parking. So I'm just concerned as a thirty year resident of this neighborhood. I work in the city and that legally, my concerns and my rights as began in the presentation don't matter. My quality of life doesn't matter. Having parking at a home I purchased thirty years ago doesn't matter because legally, I don't hold a lot of weight compared to this corporation that wants to go build these units.

There's many more things I can say, but that's basically what I can say. Thank you.

Thank you, Michael.

Thank you. It

looks

like those are all the speakers we have. I will entertain a Commission discussion before closing the public hearing in the case that there are any additional questions for the applicant. Are there any discussion points that any commissioners would like to bring up at this point, or any questions for the applicant? Go ahead, Commissioner Pham.

I had a follow-up question for Judson.

Yes, or questions for staff? Thank you.

Oh, can we ask staff?

Go ahead.

You know, my general question to the applicant, similar to right now, is that, you know, our, in the report, we are assuming a 4% household for an income level that is extremely low. Have we ran into issues where, for example, a two unit apartment that is meant to be allocated for a very low income family is restricted by occupancy?

Yeah. Thank thank you so much, commissioner Pham. So in regards to the occupancy requirements for this for the affordable housing units, the, the affordable units would need to still comply with our inclusionary housing ordinance. And so that would mean a minimum of one, occupant for the zero bedroom unit or minimum of one occupant for the one bedroom unit or two occupants for the two bedroom units, a maximum of six occupants for the two bedroom units, four for the one bedroom unit, or two for the zero bedroom unit. And so, we do inspect those units on an annual, on an annual basis.

And, if there is, is any overcrowding in which in which the household is exceeding these occupancy standards, than we do enforce those occupancy standards with the property manager.

Where I'm unclear is that, you know, there's one lease to a unit. Right? How do we how do we evaluate whether or not a single individual, the single leaseholder for that unit is extremely low income?

So the, the family is qualified and determined eligible by the property manager. And, if they are one person household residing in in, say, the studio unit, then, then the the property manager determines that one bedroom households income eligibility in compliance with the, the one bed one person maximum house maximum household income, for our area median income.

That's it. Thank you. Yep.

Thank you, commissioner Pham. Commissioner Wu.

Justin, across the street from Main Place are the town and country apartment houses. Some of them are similar to this what is being proposed here, and they have inspections too. And they're very thorough because I know one of tenants there was

my daughter, and she had to clean up her apartment before the inspection came and then afterward, and they check how many people

are living here at same time. So that's the kind of inspection you do. Right? You look at the rug, refrigerator, who who you know, how many people live in there and all that stuff. Right?

That is correct. Yes, sir. We we conduct a full unit inspection, the health and safety of the unit in compliance with something called housing quality standards, and then we verify the family family unit count.

So so you just don't just administer the section eight housing. Right?

That's correct. We also enforce and monitor these these agreements for the affordable units.

No. The the applicant did not mention that, but these these low income very low income housing, would they qualify for section eight? Or or that's that's a whole another process?

These extremely, low income housing units, they would be if if the

Applicant. Right? The the apartment applicant.

Right? Yeah. Was to was to receive a section eight voucher holder as an applicant, then and then that applicant would be would be eligible for these units.

So so, typically, those are people living in Santa Ana right now and looking for a housing. Right?

Yes. Yes.

This is

certificate happened, applied for, and that you guys have reviewed the application, where they work, how they get the income, and all that. Right?

Yes. So so yeah. So for context context regarding that, the the Rafferty in downtown Right. Santa Ana, they they had what was it? Eleven eleven units on-site, and, they they had several thousand, applicants. 3,141 applicants for those 11 units on-site. So this property, the same for those 20, extremely low income units and a new construction, beautiful new building like this. These, 20 units will have thousands of applicants.

Yeah. Have a granddaughter down at the Rafferty. Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank

you. Commissioner Escamilla.

Alright. Now, sorry. This is, I I normally never have a quibble with anything Ali says because I take Ali's word, all all the time, but Mr. Commissioner Leo, in response to the question earlier about whether or not we have any incentives for sale projects, my understanding was that our section 40 1904.1 still includes a 35% density bonus, a local density bonus for any moderate for sale projects, so that we in fact can stack that on top of state density levels. You can almost effectively double the underlying density.

I think the densities are so high that it might not impact the project's final, oh my gosh, the number of viable projects that that increases, but there are at least some efforts there, I think, within the code for an increased number of for sale projects, and we probably wanna take a look at maybe some of the, oh my gosh, restrictions that we have for condo conversions. So, I know that we drafted those laws in the '80s, so that's a little, probably out of date now for what we want, and we probably should be looking at condo conversions. But yeah, just I guess more of the observation that if we can have those early conversations with developers, letting them know that there is this local option that will provide another route potentially. And obviously, I think it's too far down the road for this one, but did want to let the applicant know that there was a local density bonus for moderate for sale units, And that moderate range is for the County Of Orange, a family, or actually a single person, is up to $132,000 a year, right? So we always have to remember that moderate no C is not moderate in kind of The U.

S. Context.

Thank you, Commissioner Escamilla. Are there any additional, questions or comments? Any questions for the applicant before I close the hearing? Great. Seeing none, the public hearing is now closed.

We're gonna go ahead and now see if there is a motion to approve this matter, but before that, I would just like to make a comment. I would just like to say that affordable housing units are for everyone. They could be for anybody in the audience that is income eligible, they could be for anybody up on the dais that is income eligible, for any of our city staff that are income eligible, I just wanna dispel any myths about individuals that are extremely low income being any less worthy of being our neighbors or being inherently dangerous or inherently bad for our community. The individuals that will occupy these affordable housing units will be put under more scrutiny as they apply to qualify for these units. So I just wanna say that so that anybody that, hears of affordable housing coming to your neighborhood, that you are aware that there is a very thorough process by which individuals have to go to apply for affordable housing.

With that, are there any is there a motion to approve this matter?

I'd like to move a motion for ail.

We have a motion from commissioner Escamilla. Do we have a second?

I second the motion.

Thank you. We have a second from vice chair Benninger. Secretary, can you please call for a roll call vote?

Commissioner Escamilla?

Aye.

Commissioner Liu? Aye. Commissioner Leva? Commissioner Pham? Aye. Commissioner Wu?

Aye.

Vice Chair Benninger? Aye. Chair Ramos?

Aye.

Motion approved by majority vote with Commissioner Leva absent.

Thank you. With that, I'm gonna call for a brief ten minute recess.

Yeah. I'm gonna go pick

up some pizza. I'll be right back.

We are reconvening the meeting now at 07:27PM. Thank you. I apologize for the delay. We are now going to continue, and continue to go a bit out of order. Thank you all for your flexibility and patience.

We're going go ahead and take on item number two now. This is the time and place for modification of conditional use permit number 1988Dash11, and variance number 2026Dash1 for the property located at 4405 West Enger Avenue located within the single family residence R 1 Zoning District. Before we begin, do any commissioners have anything they wish to disclose with regard to this item? Great. Seeing as there are no disclosures, the case planner, Fernanda Arias Hernandez, will provide a brief presentation.

Thank you, Chair Good evening, Chair and members of the Planning Commission. As discussed for discussion tonight, we have Archangel Coptic Church parking lot expansion, conditional use permit number 1988Dash11Mod1 and variance number 2020 at 4405 West Edinger Avenue. The applicant is requesting approval of the conditional use permit and variance to facilitate the expansion of an existing church parking lot. The project consists of the demolition of two single family residences and the addition of 43 off street parking spaces, resulting in a total of 138 on-site parking spaces. As part of this project, there's no changes that are proposed to the existing church building.

With that, staff is recommending to adopt a resolution approving conditional use permit number 1980Mod1, and variance number 2020 as conditioned. The project is located in a low density residential general plan, and it has a zoning of single family residential, surrounded by single family residential to the Northeast, South, and City Of Fountain Valley to the South, and multifamily residential to the West. The existing lot size is 1.49 acres, or 65,144 square feet, and they are proposing to merge three lots resulting in 2.3 acres or 100,845 square feet. In 1983, CUP nineteen eighty three-twelve was approved to allow the conversion of an existing 1,700 square foot single family residence into a church. Then in 1988, City Council approved Conditional Use Permit nineteen eighty eight-eleven for a revised project that relocated the church building closer to Edinger Avenue.

It retained two residential structures along Regent Drive. In 1995, the Planning Commission approved the modified condition to address complaints regarding church operations, including on street parking, noise, and neighborhood access. In 2003, the Planning Commission approved an expansion, but the City Council overturned the approval, and this was due to traffic parking noise and other concerns from the neighborhood. As such, no changes have been made to Condition Use Permit number nineteen eighty eight-eleven. In 2019, the applicant proposed 110 additional seats and 101 new parking spaces.

The application was continued indefinitely due to unresolved neighborhood concerns, so existing operations have remained the same under the existing CUP. Accordingly, the existing church continues to operate under CUP number nineteen eighty eight dash eleven as modified, which serves as basis for the current request to further amend the entitlement. Demolition of two single family residences located at 4319 and 4325 West Edinger are being proposed, and this would allow for 43 parking spaces, which would allow a total of 138 parking spaces. With the current project, there is no changes proposed to the existing 16,798 square foot church. There's also no changes to the current operations.

The requested CUP is required to allow expansion of a church related to the use within a single family residential zoning district. The requested variance would allow a reduced setback, landscape setback. The code requires 15 feet, and they are proposing zero foot along Edinger, and this is to accommodate the proposed parking layout and on-site circulation improvements. The applicant prepared a historic resource assessment for the properties that are proposed to be demolished, which concluded that the properties do not qualify as a historic resource. This slide shows the existing property at 4325 West Edinger from Edinger at the top photo, and then the bottom photo is a view from Gates, and that address is 4319 West Edinger Avenue.

This slide illustrates the existing and demolition site plan. The area that's highlighted orange is the two single family homes that are proposed to be demolished. This is the proposed site plan. Those two single family lots would be demolished, and then the 43 parking spaces would be provided. The Condition and Use Permit nineteen eighty-eleven Mod one request includes modifications to a previously approved entitlement, and it's governed by Section 41,638 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code.

As a modification to an existing CUP, the analysis focuses on a proposed parking expansion and its consistency with the original approval, as well as its potential to result in new or increased impacts. The 43 parking space expansion is intended to address existing parking demand associated with the church and reduce potential overflow parking with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The project has been designed to improve on-site circulation and access from Edinger to thereby minimize traffic and parking related impacts on adjacent residential streets. The proposed parking lot expansion complies with all applicable development standards, with the exception of the required front yard landscape setback, which is addressed through the variance. Variance requests are governed by Section 40 one-six 38 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code.

A portion of land adjacent to the subject property was identified as having no clear record of ownership and could not be incorporated as part of the project. The applicant initiated a quiet title action to establish ownership, was not granted title, and the land remains unavailable for development. In addition to the unclaimed land, the subject property is irregularly shaped, and is bounded by residential uses to the north and east, which further limit the available area for site improvements. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce or require 15 foot front yard landscape setback to zero feet along Edinger to allow the expansion of the existing parking lot. The reduced setback is necessary to maintain adequate drive aisle widths, provide safe ingress and egress, and accommodate service vehicle circulation, including trash collection.

The project is consistent with the general plan with the low density residential or LR7 land use designation, which preserves the character of residential neighborhoods through neighborhood stability, compatible scale and development patterns that reinforce the area's residential character. Character. The proposed parking lot expansion provides additional on-site parking that would otherwise occur on surrounding residential streets. The project is also in compliance with GOAL Land Use two, which discusses land use needs and requires a balance of land uses that meet Santa Ana's needs, specifically policy 2.3, supportive spaces. The project is consistent with those policies which seek a balance of land uses and meet the need of the city.

By providing additional parking for the existing church, the project supports ongoing serving activities while accommodating parking demand for visitors and congregants. The project is also in compliance with goal land use three, specifically policy 3.1, which support compatibility within residential neighborhoods. The expansion improves on-site parking and circulation for an existing use while maintaining the established character of the area. The project has been designed to maintain compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and avoids the introduction or visual of physical inconsistencies. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA guidelines, the project is exempt from further review pursuant to Section 15.301, Class I, existing facilities, Section 15,303, Class III, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and Section 15,304, Class IV, Minor Alterations to Land, which apply to minor alterations of existing facility involving negligible or no expansion of use, conversions of structures or accessory structures under 10,000 square feet in urbanized areas, and minor alterations to land.

The project consists of a demolition of two single family residences, which are approximately 3,000 square feet, and the construction of an expanded at grade parking lot, including associated circulation improvements, landscaping, and lighting to serve the existing church. The project does not increase the intensity of the existing use, but instead improves on-site parking capacity and circulation. In addition, the proposed improvements are minor alterations to the land with no major grading changes. As such, the notice of exemption environmental review number 20204 will be filed for the project. The city hired a consultant to peer review the historic resources assessment, which indicated the two single family residences proposed to be demolished were not considered historic resource, and there is no fiscal impact associated with the project.

As such, staff is recommending to adopt a resolution approving conditional use permit number 1988 mod 1 as condition, and adopt a resolution approving variance number 2020 as condition. That concludes my presentation, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Do any members of the commission have any questions for staff at this time? Go ahead, Commissioner Wu.

Does the church have ownership of the two property? Has that title been established?

Thank you for your question, Commissioner Wu. Are you asking if the church owns the two properties that are proposed to be demolished? Yes. Thank you. They do own both properties.

Okay. So is there a right to be able to tear it down only that there are requirements that we are specifying in the motion here to enable that to happen in a way consistent with general plan and municipal codes and all that stuff, right?

Correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Wu. Vice Chair Benninger. What

time of the week or day do they have the most activity at this church?

Most activity happens during the weekends. I'm sorry. Thank you for the question. During their hours of operation, normally happens during the weekends and during some, weeknights.

It sounds like there was problems with the neighbors in the past. Have their issues been resolved?

They would be resolved through the addition of parking. Most of the concerns were regarding parking on the streets, so now that they're adding parking on-site, that would resolve the issue of churchgoers parking in residential zones and instead parking in the parking lot.

You hit the key focus that I I had was the the lighting. Under our city, do we have ordinances limiting times in which you can light that parking lot?

That's correct. They have to comply with lighting standards in the Santa Ana Municipal Code, and that would be reviewed through plan check.

To the homes that are just to the north of the two that are going to be demolished, is there going to be a wall built there to keep the light from bothering those folks?

Through the plan check process, staff will make sure that there's shields that protect light from spilling onto their properties.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Manager. Do we have any other questions for staff? Commissioner Escamilla.

I just want to make sure I'm reading this correctly. So this is going to be the four thousand three hundred twenty five and four thousand three hundred nineteen homes that are demolished. And then is it the vacant kind of adjacent abandoned property or unclaimed property, that little kind of odd shaped triangular thing that happens where the two streets meet? And just to confirm that there's not going be any sort of modification to the circulation pattern. It literally is everything will be on those two sides and this actually prevents any sort of expansion northward where there would be more of an impact into the neighborhoods. So all of that is in here?

That is correct, yes. I can pull up the site plan.

Sounds good. I just wanted to make sure I was reading it right. It does appear there seems to be some ownership or some inter operation between some of the properties that are there by the oh my gosh, that little roundabout on Regent just because I'm seeing like some gates and stuff, so those are, I presume, owned by the Coptic church as well?

There's two properties that are located in the rear that are owned by the church, but there's two other properties that are closer to the corner of, I think, Gates and Regent. Those are not owned by the church, but they do have there's Gates.

There's oh, okay. They're not owned by okay. Yeah. I'm just just trying to figure out how that because

By the moment, we can find them.

Oh, someone online.

Go ahead. Go ahead, Commissioner Skimmie.

Okay. Yeah. No. That's but I think that's those are the questions that I had. Sorry. I guess a total additional parking now that we're gonna be adding here. Do we what's the number of

40 oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah. Number of additional parking

spaces. 43 parking spaces.

Okay. Perfect. Cool. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Escamilla. Do you have any other comments or questions for staff at this time?

Just one question.

Go ahead, Commissioner Pham.

Historically, in your staff report, there were complaints about noise. Was it noise due to activity, or noise due to the parking movement?

I believe there was both. Thank you. I believe there was both, and this was reflected in 1995 and 2003, and then again in 2019, but since then there's no active code enforcement cases, so this is probably going to solve most of the parking issues, and if there's noise complaints, the residents do have the option to contact code enforcement.

And then on the staff report, says that as it stands, nine to five parking stalls are required for the current use?

The current requirement is 108.

Oh, okay. But 95 is being provided. It's the exemption based on the previous CUP? Correct. So then they'll be delivering more than what's required?

Correct.

That's all. Thank

you, Commissioner Pham. Do we have any other questions for staff at this time? Great. Seeing none go ahead, Commissioner Wu.

According to their liturgy schedule, the earliest they start is around 05:00 and I mean, 5AM in the morning, but they have no service past 11:30. So but since their establishment since in 1981, seven years later, they started getting a lot of complaints from people community parking stuff. So is there a conclusion that could be drawn from that as the church became more established. But, you know, they don't have evening or late afternoon activity. Doesn't seem to have a school.

You know? So I'm wondering if, you know, the complaint might be just nuisance things or or the unfamiliarity with the Coptic Orthodox Church. I'm sorry. That's a speculation question. I don't mean to ask that way, but I'm just kinda curious.

Of my

And Pat, you ask that

we observe, but the applicant is in attendance tonight and can I'll ask take a something. Step at Thank

you. With that, we're gonna go ahead and now open the public hearing. Would the applicant like to speak on the matter? You may step forward. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Jim Gartner. I'm a local architect here in Santa Ana, and I've lived here forty years and had my business for thirty nine and a former planning commissioner. So I am I'm helping the church from initially architecturally, although the the project morphed into more of a civil engineering project, but nonetheless, there's a lot of consultants involved. And the church representatives are here to answer questions that I probably can't even answer, some of yours about the hours of operation, etcetera.

But, anyway, the the whole idea of the parking proposal is to alleviate neighborhood parking. So this concentrates the parking on the church property, and it's a really nice landscape job as well. It's kinda cleaning the whole site up, really. So it's been a it's been great to work with them on that. And and as a resident here, I, of course, like that kind of improvement. So I'll let them answer specific questions, but if you have anything architecturally or how we came up with the site plan, I'd be happy to answer that.

Thank you. Does the commission have any questions of the applicant?

You wanna

add something here? I think one commissioner may have had a question earlier.

Yeah. Good afternoon, commissioner, and thank you for the opportunity to come after you today, and really great comment with the previous applicant and with us. Looking forward, first of course, my name is Basim Berzoum. I'm representing the board. I'm the secretary of the board, and I've been with the church since its establishment. Actually, they we thought of the church since 1981, actually. The COP came after you 1983. So it's been about forty five years in the making. So since to answer to address mister Wu's concern or questions, Over the years, over that time, there has been a lot of activity as part of any new church that's being developed. A lot of things that we're trying to attract.

We are serving everybody that's around the neighborhood, And with that, there is a lot of activity. So a lot of the things that we notice and observe is definitely with activity, there are noises to the neighbors. So we try not we try. We start limiting the activity to close no later than 10:00. 10:00 off-site, like like literally everybody out of the church at 10:00.

So, the liturgy discussion, the concern that you mentioned, that liturgy, we we alternate liturgies, and the intent of it is from a parking management standpoint. So we we know, we listen to the community, and the need, and the concern, and the impact on on the public, like, the neighboring parking. So a way of mitigating it is to just alternate, like you have the same service twice, you have it earlier, and then we allow a half an hour to allow people to get out and get in, right, from the parking. Now, with this project, what we're doing, and we're excited about it, is that we listen to the community, and we wanted to even do above and beyond. With the addition of these parking, we're actually enhancing.

As a matter of fact, I was blessed to be joined by few members from the church to 30 26 neighbors around the the the community around this project, and everybody but nothing to support this project. Excited. As a matter of fact, I wanted to thank two of the neighbors sitting here with us too as well, patiently through the previous switch. Actually, they're sitting to support the project. They're the one with their wall right next to this development.

So, by the way, as an FYI, one of them used to be, again, it's the project in 1995. The application at the time. You will be listening how things have changed, and how how he positively, like, excited about the project, and he made the time from his busy schedule. And by the way, our our outreach is a is a different approach what we've done this time. We didn't wait for people to come. We went to them. Right? To kinda give them the personal attention and answering questions. Concern, we share our phone. I mean, it was it was really a a great welcoming opportunity. So with that, I'm I'm really open for any additional question or or the team actually from the consultant we have with us as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions of the applicant? Commissioner Leo.

Could you come back up?

I'll come back up. Alright.

A little history. I was here when we approved the first one, and then Santa Ana, the city council overturned it. But what other services besides just, religious services you provide? If I recall I correctly, you did some food distribution. You did other stuff. You you you've embedded yourselves in the community as far as I know. Could you talk about what else what other services you do? Because I know it brings other people. So if you could

talk about the other services you do

besides just the religious services.

Yeah. First of all, thank you for the question, commissioner Liu. I really appreciate it. And, of course, the intent of any Coptic church okay. Let me go back to the history a little bit.

So, this is the first church that came to Orange County as a Coptic. You know, our first church that was established in the California was in LA. There was a lot of people that actually was making it living here, traveling all the way to Downtown LA, like actually by La Cienega site, you're familiar, almost close to Beverly Hills. So, thanks to the fathers and their wisdom, and the pope, actually, they came and established this church forty five years ago. But, to answer your question, is a lot of the service, I know the fathers are here, they can speak way more, but I'll just give you a snippet of it.

So, outreach to disadvantaged community. Right? Like homeless services. We go to the homeless themselves. We try to switch October 31, rather than being wild and crazy and this is an area of Santa Ana. Of course, by the way, as as us visiting, imagine I'm visiting you, right, with no appointment, I'm knocking at the door, there is dogs outside, right? Obviously, you can tell it's not an easy outreach effort, right? But it was done because of a great love and actually the neighbor opened the door to us. Once we hear it tell you how kind of level of love and support. But along the same line on what type of services, right?

Other services is we have food banks, right? Like, we used to get a lot of donations on the food bank, but some time because it's the demand is so high in Santa Ana, rather than storing the food and then worry about the the like, the expiration date and all of this, we start choosing, gift cards and we go and team them with people to go. So, that was one service. Another service is actually bible studies too as well. A lot of things that the churches build upon is actually Jesus Christ and the message that he sent.

The peace message, and the community, and the love, and the care. And that's what we embed in our children. You're gonna see a lot of children here. Actually, we limited. I didn't intentionally ask for anybody to show up, and reason being because I wanted to show their God's hand, right, with this this particular application. So again, it's a church that anything you can think of, they do, really for the care of the community. Right? So, again, I I really appreciate the comment, and hopefully, answer your question too as well. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner Leo. Commissioner Pham.

Just just a passing comment. I I frequent the pan bakery near the church, so so I I understand the activity that that's going on.

We we can smell it, I'm sure.

So, I'm glad that you are expanding your parking just because I I noticed that parking does spill out onto the side of the street, and it's a bit dangerous because sometimes I I I see people just crossing the street. Obviously, everyone's late for mass or something, and and and they were trying to go to church, but I I think that's very helpful to kind of prevent that from happening by expanding your your parking field. So I'm glad that that's happening. Yeah.

Yeah. Thank you, commissioner Pham, for this. Actually, if you guys recall, three years ago or so, the governor had passed a mid block. By the way, I'm an engineer by profession. I've been engineered for thirty six years on roadway, highways, and multi residential, commercial residential, and so forth. But anyway, the mid block crossing became legal. Right? And it's something we don't like, right, because people do it now legally instead of being illegal. But a project like this, it does enhance that safety as well. Plus, any area that's non ED compliant around the that project, we're fixing as well, part of that project, which is amazing. So that's all. Thank you for the comment. I appreciate it.

Thank you, commissioner Pham. Vice chair Benninger.

What what I'm sorry. Will you be planning any events in this parking lot, like a festival or celebration?

Usually, the parking, I'll I'll tell you a recent event that we had. We where we brought, like, some inflatables. Right? So for the little kids. Right? And we try to, you know, we're all as parents, we're familiar with how our kids are on the media most of the time, iPhone or on the TV or in games. Right? So, trying to divert their attention by creating these type of events. Right? And, we try to make it entertaining so they bond and listen to the message of Christ while they're there.

So, that's what we exactly These type of event had that goal in mind. Right? How can I connect them to be a good citizens for not just Santa Ana, for the entire state of California? And, a lot of them, either doctors, you'll be surprised. One of the, you know, one of the dentists that came with me in the outreach, he couldn't make it because he had like a lot of in the office, a lot of dental work, right, for maybe patient.

But just to to your point, a lot of the effort that like this event is mainly gearing to connect the community together. Right? Whether at all ages, at all levels, at at maybe things that we see deficiencies from the community, like including drugs too as well. We have we bring, one event as an example. We bring a Santa Ana police officer, actually, that start talking about drugs and and to the youth. Right? And the ones that's vulnerable to this. Right? So all kind of outreach. So again, I mean, I can't speak for hours, but of course, thank you. Thank you for the comment as well.

Well, I just I just asked that because I'm happy to be a member of a Catholic church and our Catholic church has a yearly festival. We have to be watchful of the neighbors and what time runs till and Unfortunately, we move them off the parking lot, so it doesn't interfere with Sunday services.

Yeah, and a lot of time we do that too as well. Like, if it's something we know it's big, we try to go on an off-site, in an indoor close, so also the noise is contained as well.

You mentioned food distribution. Were you lot of time distributing food at the site?

We we don't. Like, we serve, like, just snacks and foods, like, after liturgy. But if you're talking about cooking, like like a professional weekly cooking, right, for example, that's not the intent usually. Could be at special event, barbecue maybe outside or so, like fundraising event or so. That's maybe we start doing it like once once or twice a year nowadays. Right? So.

But you're planning any events that we're gonna take half the parking lot in order to pull off?

Not not have the parking. Like, we do the taking some of the parking, we take it with the safety in mind, which means we secure an off-site parking, and we try to transport with church vans to make sure that the safety is maintained. Right? If we're taking it and again, it's the reason when we if we do this, usually, which is not the entire parking, it's usually do it to make sure that the safety of the kids as they're walking around and someone trying to exit is maintained throughout the event itself. But great great question.

Very good. I really appreciate it. I just wanna say quickly that in in September, I took a tour of Egypt, up went down Nile, but learned an awful lot about the Coptic church, and that was very interesting to see the history of it and see Saint Mary's Cathedral built on the the the rooms about I'm I'm sorry, the Tower Of Babylon. Very interesting. I recommend for anybody here.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, vice chair Benninger. I think I'll, just close out, comments to say, thank you for the way you're serving our community, and also thank you to all the members of your congregation that joined tonight. I apologize that we took your item this late, but we appreciate you all being here. With that, the public hearing is now closed. Okay.

Is there a motion to approve?

Chair, I'm so sorry. Just to clarify, were there

any additional comments? The public hearing is not closed. We are gonna check with our recording secretary to see if there are any members of the public that would like to speak. Thank you.

Chair, we have received a total of five emails in the form of public comments for this item before the 03:30 p. M. Deadline, which has been distributed to the commission and posted online. If you are attending this meeting in person and would like to comment on this item, please fill out a request to speak form and turn it in into the secretary. If you are participating via Zoom and would like to comment on this item, please select the hand icon to indicate that you would like to speak.

If you are calling in and would like to comment on this item, please dial 9 and then 6 to unmute yourself. I will wait a few seconds. Chair, we have four speakers in house and one in Zoom.

Thank you. I apologize for almost closing the public hearing prematurely. I'm going go ahead and call names. I apologize in advance if I mispronounced your name. We'll start off with Youssef Tanios.

Good evening. My name is Youssef Tanios. My professional, I am engineer. I'm looking for aerospace industry. So I've been with I live, like, just one mile away from church. I intentionally moved close to church because I love the church. I used to live in Rancho Cucamonga, like, 40 miles away, but we used at that time to drive all the way to church because we love this church. But intention was the praise of our fathers, we got a home close to church. So we've been attending the Alkangian Michael Church for almost fourteen years, and I'm serving the young youth for almost ten years, me and my wife. And, hopefully, my daughter, by next year, she will start serving with us.

So I'm just highly recommend if you can accept this great project. I I got the blessing to go as mister Bessemer Basum to the neighborhood for almost, like, 12 of the neighborhood, and all of them shows their acceptance or is a they are very thankful for having this project to be proto church so we can have, like, safe community, and also, the landscape will be more beautiful. I believe also this can raise also the value of their homes as as well as mine. So thank you for for listening for us.

Thank you very much. Next up, I'll call Kathy Reyes.

Hi. Would you put up the picture?

Sorry. Can we please have you speak into the microphone and your time has started with three minutes.

Okay. Okay. Could you put up the picture that showed it was, I think, Gates Street. Anyway, it's a picture of my house, a brick wall, and I'm right next door to the church. And I moved there in 1979. And they didn't live there then, but they're the best neighbors. They've really been nice all these years, and and they own the the little house right next door to my house with the brick wall that's gonna be demolished. And sometimes through all these years, sometimes people who went to their church lived in that house. Maybe they rented it. Sometimes it was maybe single mother.

Sometimes it was single man. So for all these years, wonderful neighbors. And I think this is a wonderful thing they're gonna be doing. I don't go to their church. I visited it once. It's so beautiful. But, I know when I go to church, I have to find a parking space. It's really hard. And, it's really gonna be a really good thing for, for all of us. Yeah. And also the streets in our neighborhood are not that, big. Like, not even on Sunday, if there's neighbors parking across the street and people parking in front of my house, it's very hard for cars to go two ways. So it's gonna be it's a huge improvement. So thank you very much.

Thank you. George Reyes?

Well, my wife and I agree. So we we've lived there for as long as the church has been there. We were there when the church was in a house, and they had folding chairs in the backyard and held their service there. Basim has come over, and he showed us the plans, asked for our input, said, you know, what do you want? Because we'd like to help accommodate what our neighbors want. So I think it's a great project. I really hope you guys will vote for it. Thank you. Rolf Vetter.

I am, Ralph Vetter. I live at 4322 Regent Drive right next to

the

church. I was surprised to not see any of my neighbors here. They're usually screaming about the church. But, you know, what forty years ago, I told them they need to tear down those two houses and put their parking there, and they're finally doing it. So there's nobody against it. Everybody's for it. It's great. The church is great. I kind of disappointed that they have the the the the fence there that I mean, the the gates that close off the parking sometimes. Hopefully, with this new parking lot, that's not gonna happen, that they can have their their festivities and stuff there instead of in right next to us.

But they're great neighbors, and that's it's it's awesome. They deserve everything, and I'm I'm all for it. It doesn't look like anybody's against it, so don't you be against it either. Any questions?

Thank you for your comments and to everyone else. We'll now go to our speaker on Zoom.

Erica Villargomez, we are ready.

Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Well, I wanted to, you know, be clear, and I'm here. I've I've lived at Lilac, and we've all we've all seen throughout the years.

I'm 38, so at least thirty years that I've lived there. The the spill the traffic spill into the streets, especially on the weekends. I'm not against it. I'm uncomfortable because it's happened in other areas even with our, you know, Catholic church that we go to. But I was more concerned about there being additional, congestion because the area where those two houses are, I mean, they'll be exiting in in onto Edinger Avenue.

And it seems like in order for congregate, you know, congregates or people that go to the church, they'll probably still end up parking on the street anyways just for the convenience of being to get in and out as soon as you know, instead of being being stuck in a parking lot. I also thought, well, it's it seems like, yes, like, an like, a nice addition to finally get rid of some of our congestion, but it's also getting rid of two homes in the area, and that might set a precedent to continue to do so and be in a very special neighborhood, really nice community with a residential area with homes that are, like, a little ranch style, little Texas type of homes. So that was my only other concern. All also, well, I don't know. I I noticed that in the that he did say that they were gonna change any of the operations, but should they change them in the future with additional parking, would that be a reason for them to invite more people or more functions to the church or that area or even I don't know.

I think a school back in the day was was had been proposed. I mean, there's already a school in the area. My children walk to school. I don't want extra congestion spilling out into that little that little neighborhood. Because like they said, like, neighbor said, if there's cars parked on both sides, there's very little egress. And that is my stance on that.

Thank you. Are there any additional comments or questions for the applicant before I close the public hearing? Great. Seeing none, the public hearing is now closed. Is there a motion on this matter?

I'll move. Commissioner Will.

I move.

Do you move to approve?

Approve.

Thank you. I